Talk:Muhammad I of Córdoba

Untitled

What kind of title is "Muhammad I of Umayyad"? john k 20:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No kidding! This is absurd. Wouldn't Muhammad I of Córdoba be much better? QuartierLatin1968 18:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aleclere0413 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Aleclere0413 (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad I of Cordoba

I am going to add to the current topic, as there is substantial information that the article is currently lacking, especially historiography. Aleclere0413 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Aleclere0413, your edits so far have contained a lot of unsourced content, some personal comments/opinions, and a lot of information that is not specific to Muhammad I and would instead belong at Emirate of Córdoba, which covers the wider period in question. Please review Wikipedia's core policies: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view, which all edits must respect. Please limit your edits to adding content that is directly relevant to Muhammad I (not simply to Umayyad Cordoba in general) and that is directly supported by the cited sources (no additional commentary should be added on top of what the cited sources themselves say). R Prazeres (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

What is unsourced in my most recent edit? I added my references to the already existing references on the article. Also, what I added to the Muhammad I article directly relates to him as I added information about the historiography about Islamic al-Andalus, the complex relationship between Abrahamic religions, and the architecture that was funded by Muhammad I. Aleclere0413 (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

A quick look at the last version of the article edited by you ([1]) makes it clear that this is an argumentative essay. Please see WP:FORUM (and the wider policy on that page) for a better idea of what Wikipedia should and shouldn't be. Wikipedia articles are intended to summarize facts that can be verified directly in reliable sources. Content consisting largely of opinions or arguments is almost never acceptable, except for specific situations that need to be treated very carefully (see Wikipedia:Controversial articles and the wider policy, WP:NPOV, which I already linked above).

I'm not going to go through all the problems with your latest edits, but here's one example of the many opinion statements you included that have no cited source: "Both of these one-sided viewpoints have negatively shaped the historical narrative of Islamic Iberia. The persistent lack of continuity in the historiography of the Spanish Middle Ages has made it misunderstood to this day. These historiographical issues need to be acknowledged in order to fully understand the Arab conquest of Spain and how it led to the powerful state of al-Andalus."

Even if you show us that these statements are opinions directly expressed in published articles (which should be clearly cited if so), it's still not in line with the purpose of a Wikipedia article and it's beyond the scope of this article, which is specifically about one single ruler, not about al-Andalus or the Umayyad period in general. If you want to edit on that wider topic, then this is the wrong article to do it.

Among other problems that could be avoided with more caution, you also needlessly repeated a discussion of the Cordoba Martyrs here, when it's already discussed in the next section following this. R Prazeres (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, professional historian here, so I can speak to the fact that this person's edits were absolutely in line with Wikipedia standards. There's no such thing as unbiased, fact-based (positivist) history. We left that idea in the last century. All of history is an argument. As Wikipedia editors, we make decisions about what to include, what to exclude, what to highlight, what to downplay, etc., which is to say, we make arguments. This author stated that the historiography of Islamic Iberia tends to reject a narrative of continuity. That's not an opinion but a claim, which the author could support with citations to various scholarly works making it an evidence-based claim (i.e., the foundation of historical practice).

What I find more problematic about your criticisms, and this is, indeed, my opinion, is they're profoundly condescending. Wikipedia should be a place where we edit articles as a community but you seem to be more in favor of a dictatorship. I checked your activity. You've written so many articles on Muslim history that the topic as it stands now on Wikipedia has a lopsided view. No one person should so dominate a single topic let alone one as broad as Muslim history. I think you've edited quite enough and it's appropriate for another voice to be heard, don't you? Otherwise your dominance looks a lot like tyranny. 138.87.133.15 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I am going to add in my new edits to the Wikipedia article. I added some more citations, including primary and secondary sources. Aleclere0413 (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you planning to simply re-add the same content as before, or will you be restricting yourself to material specifically about Muhammad I? R Prazeres (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess this answers my question. Aleclere0413, you have continued to ignore the main and very obvious point I already made above about the scope of this article. Please bring this content to Al-Andalus, the appropriate overview article for the topic you are actually writing on. Other editors may still choose to raise issues there, but it will at least be in the right place. R Prazeres (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)